Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Manju Puri – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8455 of 2019 (Arising Out Of SLP(C)No.20452 of 2017
Decided on : 14-11-2019
(a) Administration of justice delay and laches - Probate - Revocation of - Appellant stating she filed application within time of her knowledge of the probate - Nothing on record showing her previous knowledge - High court also not returning any finding about knowledge prior to the date stated - Yet High Court observing that the application is laible to be rejected for inordinate delay - Not sustainable. (Para 20, 21)
(b) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 283 r/w Rule 9, Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914 - Will unregistered - Application filed by executor on 27.05.1982 - Will probated on 04.06.1982 - No citation issued - Use of word ‘may’ in section 283 - Making issue of citation at discretion of court - But such discretion has to be judicially exercised with proper care adverting to the facts of each case - When a Will is propounded which alters the devolution of property, the District Judge should direct special citation (Para 32, 33)
(c) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 283 - Will probated 20 years ago - On consent from two beneficiaries - And, no objection from a person who would be disinherited by such no objection - No objection verified by an advocate without any vakalatnama - Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra claimed by respondents to have given consent in 1982 filing suit for partition in 1984 - Apparently not having knowledge of the probate - Even the beneficiary of the Will not mentioning it in the suit for partition - The will being 20 years old, all manner of doubt and suspicion was required to be removed. (Para 34, 35)
(d) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 283 - Will probated without issuing citation - Liable to be revoked. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
One Surjan Singh Randhawa had purchased immovable property along with his brother, Bachittar Singh Randhawa, in the names of their respective wives, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt. Celia Mary Randhawa. Surjan Singh Randhawa had two daughters, namely, Smt. Gian Hanspal and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra. On 15.06.1961, Surjan Singh Randhawa executed a Will bequeathing the above immovable property to his eldest daughter, Smt. Gian Hanspal. Surjan Singh Randhawa died on 28.11.1962. Registered gift deed dated 25.03.1964 was executed by Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa in favour of Smt. Gian Hanspal with regard to above property. Bachittar Singh Randhawa, brother of late Surjan Singh Randhawa filed a probate petition before the High Court seeking grant of probate in relation to the Will dated 15.06.1961. Along with probate petition three no objection certificates were attached i.e. certificates of Smt. Gian Hanspal, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra. The High Court allowed the application and granted probate in favour of Bachittar Singh Randhawa.
In April, 1984, Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra filed a suit against Smt. Gian Hanspal for partition of the property. Smt. Gian Hanspal died during the pendency of the suit on 24.02.1988 and her heirs were impleaded.
The suit filed by Smt. Beena Kumari got dismissed for non-prosecution and application for restoration of the suit also failed. On 28.06.2010, Rajiv Singh Hanspal, son of Smt. Gian Singh and late Dr. Harbhajan Singh Hanspal with two others sold the premises in favour of one Rungta Mines Limited.
The appellant came to know about the conveyance deed and through conveyance deed came to know the probate dated 05.06.1982. The appellant, daughter of Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra, filed an application for revocation of the probate granted on 05.06.1982 impleading respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as the legal heirs of Gian Hanspal, respondent No.4, the purchasers of the premises in dispute by conveyance deed and respondent Nos.5 and 6 as performa respondents were impleaded. The brothers of the appellant were impleaded as proforma respondents.
Single Judge rejected the application for revocation of probate.
The appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge also came to be dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Single Judge erred in not issuing any citation to Smt. Beena Mehra in the probate proceedings and without any verification of genuineness of no objection certificates mechanically granted probate.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed against the Division Bench judgment dated 13.04.2017 of Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2015 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for revocation of probate dated 04.06.1982 in relation to Will of one Surjan Singh Randhawa.
2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:
One, Surjan Singh Randhawa had purchased immovable property which was subsequently numbered as 5/1A Belvedere Road, Kolkata along with his brother, Bachittar Singh Randhawa, in the names of their respective wives, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt. Celia Mary Randhawa. Surjan Singh Randhawa had two daughters, namely, Smt. Gian Hanspal and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra. On 15.06.1961, Surjan Singh Randhawa executed a Will bequeathing the above immovable property to his eldest daughter, Smt. Gian Hanspal. Surjan Singh Randhawa died on 28.11.1962. Registered gift deed dated 25.03.1964 was executed by Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa in favour of Smt. Gian Hanspal with regard to above property numbered as 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata on 27.05.1982. Bachittar Singh Randhawa, brother of late Surjan Singh Randhawa filed a probate petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking grant of probate in relation to the Will dated 15.06.1961. Along with probate petition three no objection certificates were attached i.e. certificates of Smt. Gian Hanspal, Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa and Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra. Calcutta High Court vide its order dated 04.06.1982 allowed the application and granted probate in favour of Bachittar Singh Randhawa.
3. In April, 1984, Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra filed a suit against Smt. Gian Hanspal for partition of the property including the premises 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata. In the suit Smt.Gian Hanspal was impleaded as defendant. In the suit Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra claimed that after the death of Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa, the mother of the plaintiff, she along with her sister, Smt. Gian Hanspal became entitled to share in the property. In the suit written statement was filed by Smt. Gian Hanspal opposing the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded in the written statement that Smt. Harnam Kaur Randhawa has gifted the premises 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata by registered Gift Deed dated 25.03.1964, the suit was claimed to be barred by time. Smt. Gian Hanspal died during the pendency of the suit on 24.02.1988 and her heirs were impleaded.
4. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Hanspal, who was substituted in the suit being T.S. No.61 of 1984 filed a written statement reiterating the claim on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 25.03.1964. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had notice and knowledge of the Will at least from 29.08.1984 when the copy of the written statement was served upon the plaintiff. Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra died on 05.05.2008.
5. The suit filed by Smt. Beena Kumari got dismissed for non-prosecution and application for restoration of the suit also failed. On 28.06.2010, Rajiv Singh Hanspal, son of Smt. Gian Singh and late Dr. Harbhajan Singh Hanspal with two others sold the premises, 5/1C Belvedere Road, Kolkata in favour of one Rungta Mines Limited.
6. The appellant came to know about the conveyance deed and through conveyance deed came to know the probate dated 05.06.1982. The appellant, daughter of Smt. Beena Kumari Mehra, filed an application G.A. No.2441 of 2011 for revocation of the probate granted on 05.06.1982 impleading respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as the legal heirs of Gian Hanspal, respondent No.4, the purchasers of the premises in dispute by conveyance deed and respondent Nos.5 and 6 as performa respondents were impleaded. The brothers of the appellant were impleaded as proforma respondents. In the application the case of the appellant was that after coming to know about the conveyance she got inspected the probate application, records of P.L.A. No.90 of 1982 o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
